President Donald Trump slammed former first buddy Elon Musk for starting a third political party, saying such parties have ‘never worked’ while also calling the move ‘ridiculous.’

Trump spoke with reporters before boarding Air Force 1 in Bedminster, New Jersey, when he was asked about Musk’s move to start a third party.

‘I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party,’ Trump said from the tarmac. ‘We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party. The Democrats have lost their way, but it’s always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion.

‘It really seems to have been developed for two parties,’ the president continued. ‘Third parties have never worked. So, he can have fun with it, but I think it’s ridiculous.’

Musk announced the launching of a new political party called the ‘America Party’ on his social media platform X on Saturday.

The entrepreneur called the formation of the party a direct response to a corrupt political establishment that no longer represents the American people.

The announcement followed a viral July 4 poll on X, where Musk asked whether voters wanted independence from what he called the ‘two-party (some would say uniparty) system.’

Over 1.2 million votes were cast, with 65.4% saying ‘yes.’

‘By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it,’ Musk posted Saturday. ‘When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.’

A short time after his gaggle with reporters, Trump turned to Truth Social to express concerns over Musk, while giving insight into what may have led to the two parting ways.

‘I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks. He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – The System seems not designed for them,’ the president said. ‘The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds!

‘Republicans, on the other hand, are a smooth running ‘machine,’ that just passed the biggest Bill of its kind in the History of our Country,’ Trump continued. ‘It is a Great Bill but, unfortunately for Elon, it eliminates the ridiculous Electric Vehicle (EV) Mandate, which would have forced everyone to buy an Electric Car in a short period of time.’

Trump said he has been ‘strongly opposed’ to an EV mandate from the very beginning, and the new bill allows consumers to buy whatever type of vehicle they want, whether it is electric, gas, or hybrid-powered.

‘I have campaigned on this for two years and, quite honestly, when Elon gave me his total and unquestioned Endorsement, I asked him whether or not he knew that I was going to terminate the EV Mandate – It was in every speech I made, and in every conversation I had,’ Trump said. ‘He said he had no problems with that – I was very surprised!’

Trump also said Musk asked a close friend of his to run NASA, but the president took issue with it when he found out that friend was a ‘blue blooded Democrat’ who never contributed to a Republican.

‘I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon’s corporate life,’ he said. ‘My Number One charge is to protect the American Public!’

Musk chose to establish a new political party after expressing grave concerns with the president’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill,’ which was signed into law on Friday at the White House.

The sweeping $3.3 trillion legislation includes tax cuts, infrastructure spending and stimulus measures and has drawn criticism from fiscal conservatives and libertarians. Though Musk did not reference the bill directly in his America Party posts, the timing suggests rising friction between the billionaire and the president. Musk has previously warned that unchecked spending by both parties threatens the long-term health of the economy.

The new party, according to Musk’s posts, will target a few key seats in Congress. The goal is to create a swing bloc powerful enough to hold the balance of power and block what Musk sees as the worst excesses of both Republicans and Democrats.

Third parties have traditionally had a difficult time gaining ground in American politics as the system is built for two dominant parties. With the Electoral College, winner-take-all elections and strict ballot access laws, outsiders cannot meaningfully compete. Even when a third-party candidate catches fire, it rarely lasts beyond a single election cycle.

One of the biggest third-party efforts in recent history was Ross Perot’s 1992 run. 
He earned nearly 19% of the popular vote as an independent but didn’t win a single Electoral College vote. It was the closest a third-party candidate got to the White House after President Teddy Roosevelt’s famed Bull Moose Party run in 1912 against his onetime protégé, William Howard Taft.

Others, like Ralph Nader, have tried with the Green Party, and Gary Johnson with the Libertarian Party, but no third-party candidate has come close to winning the presidency.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

Israel exchanged missile fire with Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen on Monday, targeting the group’s ports and other facilities.

Israel’s initial strikes came in reaction to a suspected Houthi attack on a Liberian-flagged ship in the Red Sea. The vessel was targeted with explosives and small arms fire, causing it to take on water and forcing the crew to abandon ship. The Houthis have not yet claimed responsibility for the attack. Israel’s military issued a warning prior to its attack, which targeted ports at Hodeida, Ras Isa and Salif.

‘These ports are used by the Houthi terrorist regime to transfer weapons from the Iranian regime, which are employed to carry out terrorist operations against the state of Israel and its allies,’ the Israeli military said.

The Houthis responded in kind when Israeli missiles started falling, but Israel reported no casualties from the attack.

The Israeli attack also targeted the Galaxy Leader, a vessel seized by the Houthis in 2023. The IDF said the ship had been ‘fitted with a radar system to track international vessels for terror operations.’

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened further strikes if Houthi aggression continues in the Red Sea or elsewhere.

‘What’s true for Iran is true for Yemen,’ Katz said in a statement. ‘Anyone who raises a hand against Israel will have it cut off. The Houthis will continue to pay a heavy price for their actions.’

Meanwhile, Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree said the group is ‘fully prepared for a sustained and prolonged confrontation’ and plans to maintain its ‘naval blockade.’

U.S. Army Gen. Michael Kurilla told lawmakers in the House Armed Services Committee last month that Iran is the number one reason the Houthis remain a threat, adding the terrorist network ‘would die on the vine without Iranian support.’

News of Monday’s exchange comes just hours before President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are set to meet at the White House.

The two leaders are expected to discuss the future of Gaza, with Israel insisting Hamas must be removed from the region completely.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend this week’s BRICS Summit in Brazil, marking the first time the Chinese leader has missed the gathering of major emerging economies. The abrupt decision has triggered widespread speculation about internal political dynamics within China and the fraying cohesion of BRICS itself.

China’s official explanation — a ‘scheduling conflict’ and the fact that Xi already met with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva earlier this year, according to the South China Morning Post — has been met with skepticism. Premier Li Qiang will attend the summit in Xi’s place, continuing a recent trend of Xi scaling back his appearances on the global stage.

‘That doesn’t make sense,’ said Gordon Chang, an expert on U.S.-China relations. ‘There are many other countries at the BRICS summit, not just Brazil. To me, it’s extremely significant that Xi Jinping is not going. It suggests turbulence at home — there are signs he’s lost control of the military and that civilian rivals are reasserting power. This is a symptom of that.’

Bryan Burack of the Heritage Foundation agrees that Xi’s absence underscores deeper issues: ‘It’s another indication that BRICS is not going to be China’s vassalization of the Global South.’ He noted that countries like Brazil and Indonesia have recently imposed tariffs on China over industrial overcapacity and dumping, moves that suggest widening rifts within the group.

‘China is actively harming all those countries for the most part, maybe with some exceptions, through its malign trade policies and dumping and overcapacity.’

Tensions with India and global trade pressure may also be factors

Some analysts point to rising China-India friction as a contributing factor in Xi’s decision to skip the summit. 

‘China has been at war with India for decades, essentially,’ Burack said. ‘These are fundamentally opposing interests. It’s difficult to see China changing its behavior in the near term, and that will keep tensions high.’

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to take a leading role at the gathering, potentially another deterrent for Xi’s attendance.

Another key leader — Russian President Vladimir Putin — is only expected to address the group by video. 

BRICS: United in name, divided in decades-long tensions 

Formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China and later joined by South Africa, BRICS was envisioned as a non-Western counterweight to G7 dominance. It has expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE and, most recently, Indonesia, strengthening its economic footprint.

Economist Christian Briggs highlighted BRICS’s massive scale: ‘BRICS now comprises 12 full members and up to 23 when counting partners. Collectively, they account for over 60% of the world’s GDP and around 75% of the global population. They control vast natural resources and a growing share of global trade flows.’

Yet despite its scale, the bloc remains ideologically and strategically fragmented. ‘It’s a group of countries that hate each other,’ Burack said bluntly. ‘China is harming many of them through unfair trade practices. There’s not a lot of incentive for real unity.’

Currency ambitions and strategic divergences

The alliance’s aspirations to challenge the U.S. dollar through alternative payment systems and a potential BRICS currency have gained media traction — but experts caution against overestimating this threat.

‘There’s been a lot of fearmongering about a BRICS currency,’ said Burack. ‘But the interests of these countries are completely divergent. There’s more smoke than fire when it comes to a currency challenge to the dollar.’

Chang echoed this skepticism: ‘The only country that can challenge the dollar is the United States. Weakness in the dollar is due to what we are doing domestically, not what the BRICS are doing.’

Still, Briggs offered a counterpoint, arguing that BRICS members are already reshaping global currency flows.

‘They’re moving away from the dollar into digital yuan, rupees, rubles. China has launched a SWIFT alternative already adopted by the Caribbean banking sector — trillions of dollars are shifting.’

Is BRICS still a threat to U.S. influence?

While its cohesion remains questionable, BRICS poses a long-term challenge to U.S. influence — particularly in regions where Washington has retreated diplomatically and economically.

‘China filled the void left by the U.S. in places like Africa,’ said Briggs. ‘Now it controls about 38% of the world’s minerals. Meanwhile, Russia’s economy has doubled despite sanctions, because they preemptively reduced reliance on the dollar.’

Yet Chang sees India as a brake on any aggressive anti-Western tilt. ‘BRICS has an ‘I’ in it—and that’s India. Modi doesn’t want to be part of an anti-Western bloc. As long as India’s in BRICS, the rest of the world is safe.’

A missed opportunity — or a calculated power move?

To some, Xi’s no-show signals instability in Beijing. To others, the opposite: it demonstrates confidence in China’s dominance over the other BRICS members.

‘He doesn’t have to be there,’ Briggs contended. ‘Xi’s power allows him to delegate. China is trading with nearly 80% of the world now. He’s moving the agenda forward even in absentia.’

What’s clear is that BRICS continues to evolve — its internal contradictions as visible as its geopolitical ambitions. Whether Xi’s absence marks a retreat or a recalibration remains one of the key questions hovering over the summit in Brazil.

Prominent Democrats sent messages of doom and gloom rather than celebration on July 4, drawing ire from a multitude of critics. Many of the messages included warnings about supposed threats to the country emanating from the Trump administration.

‘This Fourth of July, I am taking a moment to reflect. Things are hard right now. They are probably going to get worse before they get better,’ former Vice President Kamala Harris wrote in a post on X that included a photo of her and former first gentleman Doug Emhoff at the White House. ‘But I love our country — and when you love something, you fight for it. Together, we will continue to fight for the ideals of our nation.’

Many social media users were quick to point out that Harris cropped former President Joe Biden and former first lady Jill Biden out of the photo. Others took one of Harris’ famous phrases to mock her, saying that the country was ‘unburdened by what has been.’

Harris’ old boss, former President Joe Biden, posted a more mild message, while also encouraging Americans to ‘fight to maintain’ democracy.

Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama also chimed in with a warning of his own, saying that ‘core democratic principles seem to be continuously under attack.’ He argued that the word ‘we’ is the ‘single most powerful word in our democracy,’ and used his first presidential campaign slogan as one of his examples.

‘Independence Day is a reminder that America is not the project of any one person. The single most powerful word in our democracy is the word ‘We.’ ‘We The People.’ ‘We Shall Overcome.’ ‘Yes We Can.’ America is owned by no one. It belongs to all citizens. And at this moment in history—when core democratic principles seem to be continuously under attack, when too many people around the world have become cynical and disengaged—now is precisely the time to ask ourselves tough questions about how we can build our democracies and make them work in meaningful and practical ways for ordinary people,’ Obama wrote.

Xi Van Fleet, a survivor of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, responded saying, ‘We the People are taking our country back from those like you who despise America and work tirelessly to dismantle everything it stands for.’

Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared to support the anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ movement in his July 4 post.

‘On July 4, 1776, Americans said: No to Kings, No to Despotism. On July 4, 2025, all across the country, Americans say again: No to Kings, No to Despotism,’ Sanders wrote.

In response, several social media users pointed out that, unlike a king, President Donald Trump was elected.

Iran is preparing its next step in what one security expert warns remains its chief objective: developing a nuclear weapon.

‘Repair, reconstitute and rebuild is going to be the modus operandi of the Islamic Republic of Iran,’ Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Iran Program told Fox News Digital. ‘It just depends on how are they going to be doing it? While flirting with the international community? Are they going to go dark totally altogether?

‘All of this remains to be seen,’ he added.

Spokesman for the regime, Fatemeh Mohajerani, confirmed this week that the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites had been ‘seriously damaged’ following the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear program last month. 

Questions remain over the extent of damage that was incurred, as well as skepticism over whether Iran was able to move any enriched uranium or centrifuges away from the heavily guarded sites prior to the strikes. 

Though the Trump administration said on Wednesday that it had ‘obliterated’ the three facilities it struck, and has fervently rejected reports suggesting that Iranian officials may have been able to transfer some elements of the regime’s coveted nuclear program, Israeli officials confirmed this week that they are continuing to monitor the situation closely.

Experts in the U.S. and Israel have said they believe Iran is still assessing the extent of the damage from the ‘bunker busting’ bombs, and that the regime will look to recover and repair what it can — meaning it may be looking to buy time.

‘No doubt, the regime will still have a diplomatic strategy designed to rope-a-dope anybody, and to find as much time as possible for this government to do that,’ Ben Taleblu said.

The Iranian regime this week suggested it remained open to negotiations with the U.S. after President Donald Trump signaled that the talks could begin as soon as next week, though multiple Iranian officials said that that timeframe was overly ambitious. 

‘I don’t think negotiations will restart as quickly as that,’ Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a CBS News interview. ‘The doors of diplomacy will never slam shut.’ 

But the regime also took steps to further hinder the UN nuclear watchdog — which is tasked with tracking all nation’s nuclear programs — and suspended all interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Wednesday. 

That same day, the State Department condemned the move, and spokesperson Tammy Bruce said it was ‘unacceptable that Iran chose to suspend cooperation with the IAEA at a time when it has a window of opportunity to reverse course and choose a path of peace and prosperity.’

Iran has limited IAEA access in the past and Ben Taleblu argued Tehran will likely look to do this again as it attempts to hold on to any bargaining chip it can.

‘The Islamic Republic of Iran’s next step, and likely most dangerous capability right now, is its diplomatic capability,’ the Iranian security expert argued. ‘This is the capability of the regime to either enter negotiations with a weak hand and leave with a strong hand, or try to prevent a military victory of its adversaries from becoming a political victory. 

‘If negotiations do take place between the U.S. and the Iranians, be they direct or indirect, the Iranians are going to be dangling IAEA access. This is already their most important weapon,’ he added. 

Ben Taleblu explained that using the IAEA as a bargaining chip not only enables Iran to play for time as it looks to re-establish its nuclear program, but to sow division in the U.S. by creating uncertainty. 

‘By diminishing the monitoring and by circumscribing and even cutting IAEA access to these facilities, the regime is trying to make America have to rely on intelligence alone,’ he said. ‘And as you see from the very politicized debates over the battle damage assessment, relying on intelligence alone without sources on the ground inspecting the sites, inspecting the facilities, documenting the fissile material, can lead to drastically different conclusions being taken by similar but not the same intelligence organizations or representatives.’

Ultimately, Iran is not going to give up on its nuclear ambitions, Ben Taleblu warned, noting that Tehran’s security apparatus completely changed during its war with Iraq in the 1980s. 

‘Everything that we face from the regime that is a security threat was started then — the ballistic missile program, the drone program, the maritime aggression, the transnational terrorist apparatus and the nuclear program all have their origins in the 1980s,’ he said.  ‘By resurrecting this nuclear program, the Islamic Republic was not engaging in a science fair experiment. 

‘The Islamic Republic was seeking an ultimate deterrent,’ Ben Taleblu continued. ‘It was seeking an ultimate deterrence because it had a vision for what the region and the world should look like, and it was willing to put foreign policy muscle and the resources of its state behind that vision.’

The expert on the Iranian regime warned that Iran’s 40-year ‘obsession’ with developing its nuclear program to achieve its geopolitical aims is not going to change because of U.S. military intervention.